Mercury Flyby 1 |
Mercury Flyby 1 |
Feb 7 2008, 04:07 AM
Post
#541
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 3419 Joined: 9-February 04 From: Minneapolis, MN, USA Member No.: 15 |
It occurs to me that the conditions during (and, especially, directly after) the most recent general resurfacing of Mercury could preserve crustal elasticity longer than you might expect. The earliest that resurfacing could have happened would have been right at the end of the LHB, I would think -- the current surface overlays what looks like lunar highland terrain, just covered in thick lava frosting...
IIRC, the Sun was a little hotter three and a half billion years ago than it is now. And Mercury lies so close to the Sun that even a robust outward heat flow would be reversed into an inward flow on Mercury's Sun-facing side. During the long nights (assuming that Mercury's days weren't all that much different at the end of the LHB than they are now), you'd have outward heat flow and a general cooling of the crust. But the long days could have reversed the heatflow, adding a good percentage of the heat lost during the night back into the crust. Under such circumstances, the crust could have remained fairly elastic for a rather long period of time, I would think. I'd also think that this might result in a greater degree of crustal differentiation than you see on the Moon or even Mars -- might that explain some of the very dark craters? Pockets of materials that were effectively sorted out of the crust to a certain depth, and then exhumed? -the other Doug -------------------- “The trouble ain't that there is too many fools, but that the lightning ain't distributed right.” -Mark Twain
|
|
|
Feb 7 2008, 04:09 AM
Post
#542
|
|
Solar System Cartographer Group: Members Posts: 10128 Joined: 5-April 05 From: Canada Member No.: 227 |
I'm not sure about the rest of your argument, Doug, but the early sun was cooler, not hotter.
Phil -------------------- ... because the Solar System ain't gonna map itself.
Also to be found posting similar content on https://mastodon.social/@PhilStooke NOTE: everything created by me which I post on UMSF is considered to be in the public domain (NOT CC, public domain) |
|
|
Feb 7 2008, 04:12 AM
Post
#543
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 3419 Joined: 9-February 04 From: Minneapolis, MN, USA Member No.: 15 |
I guess I was thinking of the T-Tauri stage, which is supposed to be a pretty intensely hot period, sun-wise. But I suppose that happened earlier on, and is still a controversial theory...?
Seriously, thanks. I actually don't recall where I picked that supposed bit of information. Just goes to show that your brain can lie to you -- don't trust it! -the other Doug -------------------- “The trouble ain't that there is too many fools, but that the lightning ain't distributed right.” -Mark Twain
|
|
|
Feb 7 2008, 04:25 AM
Post
#544
|
|
Senior Member Group: Moderator Posts: 2785 Joined: 10-November 06 From: Pasadena, CA Member No.: 1345 |
I assume a ring structure results from a stronger rebound, but how do varying properties of rock affect rebounding, not to mention the crater diameter? Check out this freely available article showing impacts into solids of differing viscosity (this must've been fun to do!) Fink, et al. Proc. Lunar Planet. Sci 12B (1981) 1649-1666. "Impact cratering experiments in Bingham materials and the morphology of craters on Mars and Ganymede". Article freely available here. (Lotsa cool diagrams and crater pictures - crater morphology (rings, rim heights, central peaks, ejecta splats) is dependent both on the velocity of the impactor and the viscosity of the impactee) -Mike -------------------- Some higher resolution images available at my photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/31678681@N07/
|
|
|
Feb 7 2008, 01:30 PM
Post
#545
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 2997 Joined: 30-October 04 Member No.: 105 |
It occurs to me that the conditions during (and, especially, directly after) the most recent general resurfacing of Mercury could preserve crustal elasticity longer than you might expect. The earliest that resurfacing could have happened would have been right at the end of the LHB, I would think... <snip> -the other Doug Remember, early in it's development, Mercury supposedly collided with a planetesimal which stripped off most of it's silicate crust and left a core and mantle with a thin crust. This could have created a surface with atypical mechanical properties. I think that the (relatively) common double-ringed craters are due toi the material and not chance double-impacts. In a way, the "mantle crust" condition on Mercury may be closer to the Earth's surface than any other rocky planet. With Earth's mantle convection (plate tectonics), the majority ocean basins are basaltic (AKA "sima") and the continental crust is granitic (AKA "sial"). --Bill -------------------- |
|
|
Feb 7 2008, 02:00 PM
Post
#546
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 3516 Joined: 4-November 05 From: North Wales Member No.: 542 |
NOVICE HAT ON
Can somebody here help with a couple of basic facts (or estimates) about Mercury's crust? 1/ What is its temperature, below the layer affected by diurnal variations? 2/ How deep are those variations thought to penetrate? Can't really get my head round what might be going on without some idea on those points. |
|
|
Feb 7 2008, 06:25 PM
Post
#547
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 2530 Joined: 20-April 05 Member No.: 321 |
[...]
|
|
|
Feb 7 2008, 10:28 PM
Post
#548
|
|
Junior Member Group: Members Posts: 53 Joined: 5-October 06 Member No.: 1227 |
If the large metal core of Mercury implies that it collided with another body in its past (and lost its upper mantle and crust), and our moon implies that a Mars sized object hit Earth and splashed off the moon, is it out of the ream of possibility that Mercury is the remnants of the impactor that hit Earth?
Did a 'Mars sized' planet strike Earth, splashing off the material that formed the Moon and then the remants (mostly the core of the original impactor) somehow settle into a tight orbit around the sun and is now known as Mercury? |
|
|
Feb 7 2008, 10:48 PM
Post
#549
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 2530 Joined: 20-April 05 Member No.: 321 |
[...]
|
|
|
Feb 8 2008, 08:57 AM
Post
#550
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 3516 Joined: 4-November 05 From: North Wales Member No.: 542 |
at the equator, the crust should be about 125C (surprisingly mild, eh?) Unscientifically guessing from my own experience in caves, I suppose the variability is very slight more than 20 or so meters down. Thanks for that JR. Surprisingly mild indeed. On the second figure maybe Earth comparisons are misleading though, because of the big difference in day length. |
|
|
Feb 8 2008, 08:38 PM
Post
#551
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 696 Joined: 3-December 04 From: Boulder, Colorado, USA Member No.: 117 |
I get about 210 C for the sub-surface temperature near the equator, and about 120 C at 60 degree latitude- not quite so mild. The diurnal temperature variation will only persist a meter or so into the subsurface, because the dry, airless, regolith is extremely insulating.
John. |
|
|
Feb 8 2008, 09:19 PM
Post
#552
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 2530 Joined: 20-April 05 Member No.: 321 |
[...]
|
|
|
Feb 8 2008, 10:41 PM
Post
#553
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 540 Joined: 17-November 05 From: Oklahoma Member No.: 557 |
Just wondering if maybe Io might have a few spots where the subsurface temp would be room temperature. Of course, such spots may be moveable and temporary.
Talk about every other factor being horribly wrong, some on Io would be downright ghastly. |
|
|
Feb 8 2008, 10:49 PM
Post
#554
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 2530 Joined: 20-April 05 Member No.: 321 |
[...]
|
|
|
Feb 9 2008, 03:59 AM
Post
#555
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 809 Joined: 11-March 04 Member No.: 56 |
It has to. Mostly, the surface is colder than Mars, but locally hot enough to melt rock. More likely isotherms surrounding caldera rather than "spots". But, yeah, good luck getting to those locations. That day spent in cruise between the orbits of Europa and Io will set up a real horrorshow before Io fills the window. I have a very hard time imagining what it would be like on the surface of Io -- e.g., what would you be standing on if you landed? Or could you even stand up at all? I suppose a (rather sturdy) umbrella would be a good piece of apparatus to have... |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 29th March 2024 - 12:33 PM |
RULES AND GUIDELINES Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting. IMAGE COPYRIGHT |
OPINIONS AND MODERATION Opinions expressed on UnmannedSpaceflight.com are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of UnmannedSpaceflight.com or The Planetary Society. The all-volunteer UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderation team is wholly independent of The Planetary Society. The Planetary Society has no influence over decisions made by the UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderators. |
SUPPORT THE FORUM Unmannedspaceflight.com is funded by the Planetary Society. Please consider supporting our work and many other projects by donating to the Society or becoming a member. |